The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has released its long-awaited draft plan to save the ailing river system.

The plan proposes to cut water use by 2,750 gigalitres a year, short of the 3,000 to 4,000 gigalitres originally suggested.

The authority admits the plan will have an impact on local communities and is proposing to phase it in over seven years, with savings to come from voluntary water buybacks and improvements to infrastructure.

Federal Water Minister Tony Burke admits there will never be consensus on how to reform the river system but says the plan is needed to restore the river system to health.

But irrigators have warned the plan will cost thousands of jobs, put pressure on food prices and threaten family farms and regional communities.

The draft plan says 10,873 gigalitres per year is the environmentally sustainable amount of water that can be taken from the system for irrigation, agriculture, and drinking.

It says the plan will be reviewed in 2015 and as more is learned about the river system the figure for cuts could be reduced significantly, possibly by hundreds of gigalitres.

The authority regards the potential costs as "manageable" and says advances in technology and science could mean even smaller cuts by 2019.

Authority chairman and former New South Wales Labor minister Craig Knowles says the draft plan tries to strike a balance.

"There are going to be people at either end of the spectrum criticising the plan," he said.

"There'll be people who are saying I'm not doing enough, or people who are saying I'm doing way too much.

"In the end we have to strike a balance, a balance that respects that the basin provides a lot of food and fibre and it's the home to literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people and we need a healthy working environment."

The National Irrigators Council says the plan will cost thousands of jobs, put pressure on food prices and threaten family farms and regional communities.

The council's chairman Stewart Ellis says the draft fails to deliver on the promise of a balanced plan and offers no solutions to the carp, vegetation, and pollution problems.

"For our southern connected system, being the Murrumbdigee, Murray and Goulburn systems, there is almost nothing different than what was proposed in the original guide," he said.

"[It is] perhaps a different track to get to the end point. But in taking that much water out of our communities, it doesn't matter how we get there, it's just going to decimate our communities when we eventually do."

The National Farmers Federation's Matt Linnegar says the proposed cuts to irrigation are too severe and has warned that the anger displayed by farmers when the first draft plan was released is likely to be replicated.

"You would have to expect some of the same concern and indeed anger that followed the release of the guide unless there is a commitment made to some changes," he said.

South Australian irrigator groups have reacted calmly to the draft plan, but say the real fight could be yet to come.

You would have to expect some of the same concern and indeed anger that followed the release of the guide unless there is a commitment made to some changes.

Matt Linnegar, National Farmers Federation

South Australia needs to return about 100 gigalitres of water to the River Murray, about 70 gigalitres less than the previous version of the plan.

But the final figure is likely to rise. On top of the local cuts, another 960 gigalitres has to be found from the southern half of the Basin.

Ben Haslett from the SA River Communities Group says South Australia will struggle to save more than its requirement.

"We've worked hard for the last 40 years, we've capped ourselves, we've put in world class irrigation infrastructure," he said.

Peter Duggin from the Renmark Irrigation Trust agrees and says it is too early to predict the impact on river communities.

"Most of the hard work has already been done in South Australia," he said.

"It's pretty much up to the entitlement holders as to whether they sell or not".

hairy nosed wombat:

28 Nov 2011 12:56:59pm

This has nothing to do with food security. It is about whether people upstream are more important than those downstream - which is the system we have at the moment. The system does not manage the river system to maximise food production, and the irrigator and farmer representitive bodies are not interested in maximising food production. They are interested in maintaining the current water hierachy - which is that upstream people are more important and should dictate policy to downstream folks. And i say that having a history in irrigation agriculture in the upstream part of the catchment, particularly the cotton fields of northern NSW.

the yank:

28 Nov 2011 11:09:39am

Not living in the areas that will be impacted it is hard to know.

What I do find discouraging is that the mob up stream care so little about those in South Australia. That the people of Victoria, NSW and Queensland care so little about the very obvious needs of the south makes them look like a pretty miserable lot.

Pete:

28 Nov 2011 10:30:41am

Disgraceful result, but what else would you expect from a lobby group of self-interested farmers? Why 'involve the community' when the community is the problem? The sole consolation is that their short-term objectives being won, they can now look forward to a slow decline as the rivers dry up, and the aquifer water is stripped to meet the phony targets.

Arthur:

28 Nov 2011 11:16:08am

Sometimes lobbying in the extreme especially when the extremes at the other end are also going hard means a compromise somewhere in the middle in possible.

If farmers just gave in the environmentalists would get all their own way. There aren't too many environmentalists who are lobbying hard on their position that will be affected financially by proposed changes.

It is easy to be an armchair critic when your livelyhood is not at stake.

Matt:

28 Nov 2011 10:59:27am

The plan could have been aimed at keeping farmers produce up whilst reducing the water wasted. For example if farmers were given alternatives to wasteful flood irrigation then they would not be complaining about the plan that is attempting to save the river on which they rely.

An alternative for example could be recirculated aquaponic systems in greenhouses (with government training and rebates to get farmers onto these new less environmentally impacting practices) to lessen the water wasted from the murray.The farmers could grow table fishes to reduce strain on the oceans and possibly even have a hand at developing a preditory species of fish that could tolerate the colder waters of the murray, one that may be native to other parts of Australia (possibly Barramundi?) that could be fed on carp fingerlings in captivity and then released which could eventually help (citation needed) reduce the carp population.As for the pollution, draw a line on the map that allows a space for the continuation of water sports, and then prevent any petrol engines from passing said line - and obviously only take water for irrigation from upstream of the line, because not everyone likes petrochemicals in thier food.

But what ever the plan is, implement it now, not in a decade or so when theres no turning back from the damage we've caused.

Heres a plan that is probably better than the current faux plan that will see our only notable river system dry up completely. A horrible waste thanks to a greedy, lazy and unorganised government.

Babsie :

28 Nov 2011 11:12:15am

years ago farmers used to know how to monitor the water supply and all take a fair share , that was before greed came along , what happens to the jobs when the drought returns " and it will " there is no mistaking that i have grown up with a lot of them to know , i don't profess to know a lot about the Draft Plan, though it seems that if the Greens had their way it would be worse for the farmers so i say make the most of a fair thing farmers and your families will be fed for a lot more years

Dan:

28 Nov 2011 11:16:39am

I saw the interview with Barnaby Joyce on ABC Breakfast this morning. I am not commenting on the plan itself as I have not read it. Barnaby criticised the plan for being full of pretty pictures and not containing any information. I just flicked through the plan and in 226 pages there is not one single pretty picture. Perhaps the ABC journalists should have actually read the plan before the interview?

coco:

28 Nov 2011 11:19:58am

Something needs to be done to increase environmental flows. I lved in the Murray Valley for 16 years and remember a trip down river to the mouth 30 years ago. Tap water in SA towns on the river was salty then. We are taking more water out of the river than the system produces each year. I f you want to see what happens, take a trip to SW USA and Mexico. The Colorado River produces 14 million acre feet of water pa and the yanks take 16 million acre feet out for irrigation. The river stops flowing 200 miles upstream for its mouth, in the gulf of California. It was navigable to this point before all the dams an irrigation canals. Barnaby talks about towns being amputated. See how they go with no water supply in the river or is he advocating an extension of the Nationals mantra: "if it moves shoot it. If it stands still mine it"

Chris:

28 Nov 2011 11:24:06am

Even if the river was just a mud bowl these greedy farmers will cry out for more! they can see the damage being done to the river but they don`t care just us long as they can make money from another crop the river belongs to all Australians not just to those who continue to rape the environment with greed and mismanagement for their own selfish needs people complain about climate change because they don`t believe it is happening here we have a river drying up before their eyes and they still don`t believe or just won`t admit that they are responsible!

Hubert:

Irrigators, farmers, and the communities that rely on them need a reality check.

The Murray-Darling can only support so much. You argue about precisely how much, but the concept remains unchanged.

I liken the Murray-Darling situation as somewhat like to the forestry industry. The typical approach is "take take take", until one day there's nothing left to take, and everyone suffers. Unless industry (of any kind) is sustainable, then it's short term gain for long term pain.

As for the plan:

Trying to reach a compromise and make everyone happy = stupid. The river system doesn't care, it doesn't vote. It will recover or it will not.

Phasing in of the plan is vital. People need time to accept that their habits need to change (like the forestry industry). This takes time.

Bob:

Neil:

28 Nov 2011 11:43:45am

Brave to at least start to resolve this. No matter what was proposed someone would bleat about it.

Its hard for someone to watch what they see as a right taken from them. Reality is though they dont "own" the water and the disregard for long term consequences and the impact on others further down makes it difficult for me to sympathise with them too much